Beauty, Mercy, Justice

Dolan and Duplicity

Much has been made of Cardinal Dolan’s offer to deliver the invocation at the Democratic convention in the wake of his announcement that he would do the same for the Republicans.

His offer, I suggest, is showboating of the worst sort. He well knew that the Democrats would decline. After all, he has been very vocal in (rightly) criticizing the HHS mandate requiring contraceptive coverage by Catholic institutions. The Dems would be crazy to offer him a platform. And while the Cardinal has criticized Congressman Ryan’s budget plan, apparently the GOP is not worried about him reiterating that criticism at the convention. Would that they were wrong, but I fear they are not.

It is not unlikely that he will use the opportunity to criticize the HHS mandate, which is being used to convince Catholics that there is no choice but to vote for Romney in the general election.

While I heartily believe the State has overstepped its bounds with the mandate, and rather stupidly, and I believe that a secular state should adopt a maximalist approach to religious freedom, I also think much of the outrage among Catholic institutions a bit hypocritical.

It is hypocritical, first, because while contraceptive use is widespread among the faithful, the hierarchy and clergy of the Church have shown little concern. I have attended liturgy on Sundays for many decades and have heard contraception mentioned from the pulpit once or twice. The official teaching remains on the books, but it seems to the faithful that it is delivered with a wink. If the hierarchy really believed that the vast majority of married couples were in danger of losing their salvation, wouldn’t there be more concern? They certainly don’t act like men with a salvific crisis on their hands.

And when I attended a Catholic college in the 80s- one not notably “liberal” in reputation- the student health clinic dispensed birth control pills. And provided abortion referrals. I doubt very much that this was an isolated instance.

I am not saying that one should vote for Obama. And I am not saying that issues of religious freedom are not important. I am saying that there are many other very important issues, that this election is not so simple, and I am saying that it would take very little in the way of investigation by the Democrats or by journalists to make a lot of these outraged prelates look pretty stupid.

Share this:

Like this:

Related

17 Responses

Not to mention the hypocrisy of criticizing only the requirement that Catholic religious institutions pay for contraception, and not defending the freedom of conscience of lay Catholic with equal vigor.

As a rule, catechisis on actual Church teaching collapsed after Vatican II in America. The right wing dissented from the economic teachings, the left dissented from the sexual teachings, and we got “Jesus loves you rah rah rah” pablum instead.

It is no wonder to me at all that these same decades saw both the rise of clergy abuse, and the rise of accusations against dead priests who could not defend themselves in search of money from the diocese.

It is no wonder to me that the bishops have lost control to the extent that they have, so that even an atheist has more influence on a Catholic Politician’s budget than Aquinas does.

There was a significant failure to teach the Baby Boom Generation or Generation X anything real about the faith; and in so doing, we’ve lost our way to the point that many would rather follow their own favorite sins than the Church.

I don’t know what the solution is- but more “vote for the least evil lizard” ain’t it, and neither is it useful to continue to resist and censor the Encyclicals.

What’s wrong with Catholic hospitals allowing physicians who provide services forbidden by the Church to have admitting privileges? Credentialing a physician is not a stamp of approval. It simply means that the physician meets the standards required by the hospital to provide services in the hospital. There’s no morals test or even a requirement that the doctor be Catholic.

I’m very pessimistic about things now. The Obama administration went too far with the Mandate and deserves to lose Catholic support but the alternative here is really frightening to me. Although maybe this tepid kind of healthcare reform needs to go down in flames so that we can finally get a single payor system which is really the only way out of the crisis. But unfortunately to get to that single payor system I think there would have to be much suffering.

Daniel, I think you are wrong here. I don’t care much about wearing turbans, but if a government requires all Sikhs to remove them, it becomes an issue that one could die for, happily. When I was a conscientious objector during the war in Vietnam, I believed I was applying the teaching of the Church, but noted with interest that I was debating decisions that could land me in jail, but the bishops were comfortable. This time, conscientious objectors are not alone, to put it mildly. And aside from the mandates, there was an additional problem of the Administration’s claim to define the boundaries of their authority. They defined churches (entities exempt from their regs) as organizations that teach their own people about their own issues. Their definition of “church” excluded Catholic Charities, Catholic Relief Service, Catholic Worker houses, inner city schools, Mother Teresa, and Jesus himself. The bishops fussed about a new climate, and I was puzzled. But then, Boston and Chicago mayors announced proudly that they would work — as public officials — to exclude a business because of the religious views of an owner.

John, I am not disagreeing with anything you say; as I said in the post, I believe that a secular state ought to take a very generous stance regarding religious liberty. The mandate is an assault on freedom of conscience.
What I am saying is that American prelates have very little credibility on upholding Church teachings, and that to conclude that Catholics must vote for Romney is wrong. Perhaps I should have repeated that I in conscience cannot vote for either major candidate as both promote inherently evil policies.

I think what the Obama administration is attempting–in follow up to the HHS mandate–is to establish a new connotation to the freedom of religion clause of the First Amendment. There is a clear attempt to shift it to mean freedom of “worship” rather than freedom to “live” your religion. This is very problematic, and hits at the very core of our constitutional rights.

As for the pseudo-Catholic medical facilities, well, on the one hand you have Catholic institutions receiving mandates from the Church, then on the other hand, you have these same institutions receiving contrary mandates from the Feds (and those have teeth). And if you have enough non-catholics working in these facilities, the line begins to blur. Hopefully the Church will begin to draw sharp lines for these institutions in order for them to remain Catholic.

As for the other things, well they are internal Church matters that need to be righted. WRT the contraception issue, well, it seems we can’t even get Catholics to agree that abortion is the taking of a human life, so it is hard to teach about contraception until that particular foundation is in place. I know that is not an excuse, but in a world that has become so secularized, it has simply become harder and harder to teach Truth.

One good thing about Romney, is that his Mormon religion so far outside of the religious mainstream that he would definitely uphold freedom of religion rights, something we all would benefit from.

“There is a clear attempt to shift it to mean freedom of “worship” rather than freedom to “live” your religion.”

If you look at the Supreme Court’s decisions on religious freedom under the First Amendment, you’ll see a variety of ways that religious behavior outside of worship has been restricted. E.g., marrying more than one wife, not saluting the flag (afterwards reversed), keeping stores open on Sunday, using peyote, etc. In fact, in the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty (written by Jefferson), it’s made very clear that only freedom of religious “opinion” is unrestricted, “that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.”

I’m not arguing that this is good or bad, just pointing out that this is nothing new in U.S. legal history.

Oddly enought, I was just reading the memoirs of Cardinal Mindszenty yesterday, and ran across the same thought. After the liberation of Hungary by the Red Army, the Soviet high command made a proclamation that :The clergy and the faithful can carry on the exercise of their religion unhindered.”

But Mindszenty goes on to say that the statement “shows that by religious freedom the Communists mean only the free exercise of cult, of divine services. They exclude all cultural, social, and charitable activity on the part of the Church.” And he proceeds to recount how these activities were first restricted, then abolished.

Now, personally., I have grave concerns about both the Democratic and Republican parties relative to this, though on different issues. But I think the redefinition is something we have to watch out for.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

The envelope continues to be pushed on government intrusion into religion. The wall of separation, as Jefferson called it, is becoming a one way restriction. Now, for example, Catholic adoption services are being forced to pair children with gay parents, and cannot conscientiously object. Then came the contraception mandate for Catholic institutions. When will we finally say enough is enough? When priests are being told they must marry homosexual couples? This kind of thing is beginning to happen in Canada. A priest was recently arrested for giving an anti-homosexual homily at mass. This type of thing will become commonplace here, as well, unless we remove the progressives from power.

As for the Supreme Court, I find it amazing how they justify some of their decisions by taking only certain snippets of Jefferson body of work. Here’s one that I never would have heard if I did not read: In his Second Inaugural Address (1805), Jefferson stated, “[i]n matters of religion…free exercise is placed by the constitution independent of the [federal] government … [thus leaving them] … under the direction and discipline of State or Church authorities”

I suggest you read the chief Supreme Court free exercise decisions before you say much more about this issue, beginning with the Reynolds case, 1878 (98 U.S. 145), the first Mormon polygamy case, to get some idea of how the Court has approached this issue. Actually in his first Letter Concerning Toleration John Locke laid out exactly the approach which our Supreme Court has generally followed. It’s actually quite uncanny. Presidential inaugural addresses have no legal force.